Treaty

Recently, you published a letter from a married man complaining about his wife's letting their two young children sleep in their marital bed with them. They'd gone from being a couple who didn't have much sex to a nearly sexless one. You seemed to suggest that the guy bargain for sex from his wife: "Talk about how much sex you'd like, and how much she's willing to provide, and work out a compromise. " My question is, "Why bother?" Since they're married, it's unlikely he's a sex object or love object to her. It seems more likely that he's just a trapped meal ticket.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that a Lansdale woman who was convicted of using a toxin to attack her husband's mistress should not have been prosecuted under an international chemical weapons treaty. In the ruling, the justices agreed unanimously to throw out Carol Anne Bond's conviction. Bond served six years in prison for spreading toxic chemicals on the doorknob where Myrlinda Haynes, her husband's mistress, had lived, causing a hand burn, as well as on Haynes' car and mailbox.

Ever attentive to the interests of gun-makers, who long ago purchased the organization (as we gun people say) lock, stock and barrel, the National Rifle Association now wants to dictate American foreign policy by blocking a U.N. treaty aimed at controlling the international arms traffic. How lucky we are that the vigilant NRA has taken this principled stand. After all, who knows what dire consequences to our Second Amendment rights might follow any interruption in the flow of Bulgarian AK-47s into Africa's tribal wars?

Ever attentive to the interests of gun-makers, who long ago purchased the organization (as we gun people say) lock, stock and barrel, the National Rifle Association now wants to dictate American foreign policy by blocking a U.N. treaty aimed at controlling the international arms traffic. How lucky we are that the vigilant NRA has taken this principled stand. After all, who knows what dire consequences to our Second Amendment rights might follow any interruption in the flow of Bulgarian AK-47s into Africa's tribal wars?

It is extremely disappointing that the U.S. Senate recently rejected a U.N. treaty on the rights of persons with disabilities that is modeled after the Americans with Disabilities Act. The vote was 61-38, five short of the two-thirds majority needed. One of the "no" votes was cast by Sen. Toomey. The final vote was puzzling because advocating for the rights of persons with disabilities has been a bipartisan effort. The original ADA was signed by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, and this international treaty was negotiated by the administration of President George W. Bush and signed by President Obama.

If Republicans wonder why they are losing national elections and will continue to do so in the future, they just have to take a look at their recent vote and behavior in the Senate. Sen. Toomey and most of the GOP senators shamefully voted against a U.N. treaty that would have supported equal opportunity and rights for disabled Americans and citizens throughout the world. The treaty was modeled after our Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. This law for the disabled was championed by disabled veteran and former GOP Sen. Bob Dole and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush.

To the Editor: Last week the United States and the Soviet Union signed the INF treaty which would lead to the dismantlement of all medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe. Although the treaty appears to be an impressive first step towards nuclear disarmament with an entire class of missiles abolished, the real concern must lie in the consequential effects such a step causes. One such consequence rests with the safety of Western Europe, primarily Germany. The INF treaty removes all United States Pershing and cruise missiles from Europe, thereby leaving the United States with only tactical and small battlefield nuclear weapons offsetting the enormous Soviet advantage in conventional forces.

Both Secretary of State James A. Baker III and Defense Secretary Dick Cheney are urging a delay in Senate ratification of the conventional forces reduction treaty signed with the Soviet Union last November. While the delay could slow down completion of nuclear arms reduction agreements with the Soviet Union, there is sound reason for the caution. "Until we're satisfied of their good faith," Mr. Cheney told the House Armed Services Committee yesterday, "there will continue to be problems."

To the Editor: Currently pending again, after 36 years of rejection by the Senate, is the diabolic anti-American proposed U.N. "Genocide Convention" Treaty, which, if ratified by the Senate, will nullify our American sovereign independence and U.S. constitutional republic, liberty and protection of U.S. citizens from trial before the World Court composed of 15 judges, possibly including one from the U.S.A., only nine of which need sit in judgment, of which a 5 to 4 opinion is final and, with its presiding judge permitted to vote twice.

Momentum needs to build toward an international consensus on global warming as world leaders approach a treaty in Kyoto, Japan, this winter. President Bill Clinton is expected to announce the U.S. position this week, possibly as early as today. Despite the White House campaign this year to raise awareness of the worldwide rise in average global temperatures during the past century, the administration has not yet taken the leadership role it should. In fact, recent indications show a troubling down-playing of the issue compared to positions staked out by other countries.

It is extremely disappointing that the U.S. Senate recently rejected a U.N. treaty on the rights of persons with disabilities that is modeled after the Americans with Disabilities Act. The vote was 61-38, five short of the two-thirds majority needed. One of the "no" votes was cast by Sen. Toomey. The final vote was puzzling because advocating for the rights of persons with disabilities has been a bipartisan effort. The original ADA was signed by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, and this international treaty was negotiated by the administration of President George W. Bush and signed by President Obama.

Sen. Toomey recently voted against a U.N. treaty modeled after the Americans with Disabilities Act. This treaty has been ratified by more than 154 countries. This treaty has no effect on U.S. laws and no standing in U.S. courts. The treaty was supported by all veterans groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Sen. Toomey really doesn't represent the best interests of the people of Pennsylvania or people with disabilities of the United States. Philip Stanley Allentown

If Republicans wonder why they are losing national elections and will continue to do so in the future, they just have to take a look at their recent vote and behavior in the Senate. Sen. Toomey and most of the GOP senators shamefully voted against a U.N. treaty that would have supported equal opportunity and rights for disabled Americans and citizens throughout the world. The treaty was modeled after our Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. This law for the disabled was championed by disabled veteran and former GOP Sen. Bob Dole and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush.

A judge has breathed new life into Penn Treaty American Corp., ruling against the state's efforts to dissolve the Salisbury Township provider of long-term care policies . The decision is good news for the company, which hasn't sold any new policies for years, and its 200 employees in the Valley … An influential lobbying group that looks out for the interests of Pennsylvania townships has elevated to the statewide level the locally contentious debate...

A judge has breathed new life into Penn Treaty American Corp., ruling against the state's efforts to dissolve the Salisbury Township provider of long-term care policies. In 2009, the Pennsylvania Insurance Department filed papers in Commonwealth Court to liquidate Penn Treaty after an analysis showed the company would need an additional $1.3 billion to cover future claims. But last week, Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt not only denied the state Insurance Department's petition, but took the agency to task.

Recently, you published a letter from a married man complaining about his wife's letting their two young children sleep in their marital bed with them. They'd gone from being a couple who didn't have much sex to a nearly sexless one. You seemed to suggest that the guy bargain for sex from his wife: "Talk about how much sex you'd like, and how much she's willing to provide, and work out a compromise. " My question is, "Why bother?" Since they're married, it's unlikely he's a sex object or love object to her. It seems more likely that he's just a trapped meal ticket.

To the Editor: With the rejection of the treaty on atomic testing, some members of the U.S. Senate have declared themselves, to me, as old fogeys. More, it is evidence that their educational level as whole persons, not parochial party types, is about that of 11th graders in high school. No disrespect to the 11th graders, some of whom are far above the level that these naysayers in the Senate show themselves to be. So now the question is in the election of the people who run our ship of state, in our names: Do we want to elect an individual with the limited savvy of that educational level?

U.S. Sen. Bob Casey has made it clear he's unlikely to support the Obama administration's push for free trade agreements left unfinished by the Bush administration. But with the White House moving forward, the Pennsylvania Democrat is asking that before any trade agreement is decided, workers and U.S. companies are promised protection from any resulting closures or lost jobs. Monday morning Casey visited a small chemical manufacturing company in Bethlehem — Puritan Products — to stress the importance of trade assistance in the face of more foreign competition.

I watched an interview with our senator, Bob Casey, on the START Treaty. More of the same, with the Democratic senator using scare tactics as to why we should ratify this one-sided treaty. This looks like the same reasons we had to pass the Obama health care plan. Remember Nancy Pelosi standing behind her podium and making the statement, "Once we pass this bill you will like it. " Well, how is that health care bill working for you? More than 200 companies have opted out of the bill and have received a temporary OK to do so from the Obama administration.